Scots Peers, Bill to settle the Method of returning:

Clause to settle Method of Trial of Peers, for Crimes committed in Scotland.

Ordered, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in
Parliament assembled, That the Lord Chief Justice of
Her Majesty's Court of Queen's Bench and the Lord
Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, who are
to prepare, and bring in a Bill, for settling the Return of
Peers from the North Part of Great Britain called Scotland to the Parliament of Great Britain, do also prepare a Clause for settling the Order and Method for the
Trial of Peers, for Crimes committed in the North Part
of Great Britain called Scotland."

Killingworth & all Leave for a Bill.

After reading, and considering, the Report of Mr.
Justice Gould and Mr. Baron Price, to whom was referred the Petition of Mrs. Killingworth and others,
praying Leave to bring in a Bill, for the Purposes in the
Petition mentioned:

It is Ordered, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the Petitioners
have hereby Leave to bring in a Bill, according to the
Prayer of the Petition.

Bettsworth's Report re referred.

After reading, and considering, the Report of Mr.
Justice Tracy and Mr. Baron Smith, to whom was
referred the Petition of Peter Bettsworth Esquire,
praying Leave to bring in a Bill for the Purposes in the
Petition mentioned:

It is Ordered, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said Report shall
be, and is hereby, re-referred to the same Judges, to take
Care that the Order of this House, of the Sixteenth
of February One Thousand Seven Hundred and Five, be
fully complied with.

Alston's Pet.

Upon reading the Petition of Sir Joseph Alston Baronet and Dame Elizabeth Alston Widow; praying "That
the Hearing of their Appeal, appointed this Day, may
be respited:"

Rejected.

It is Ordered, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said Petition shall
be, and is hereby, rejected.

Whereas this Day was appointed, for hearing of the
Cause wherein Sir Joseph Alston Baronet and Dame
Elizabeth Alston Widow are Appellants, and Mary Alston
Widow and others are Respondents:

It is Ordered, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That this House will hear
the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, on Friday next,
at Eleven a Clock.

Wool'en Cloths, dressing and dying, Bill.

Whereas this Day was appointed, for the House to
be in a Committee upon the Bill, intituled, "An Act
for encouraging the dying and dressing of Woollen
Cloths within this Kingdom, by laying a Duty upon
Broad Cloth exported White;" and also the Bill, intituled, "An Act for the Exportation of White
Woollen Cloth:"

It is Ordered, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That this House shall be
put into a Committee upon the said Bills; on Thursday
next, at Eleven a Clock.

Robinson versus Fugill.

It is Ordered, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That this House will hear
the Cause wherein Jane Robinson and others are Appellants, and Jonathan Fugill Respondent, on Monday the
First Day of March next, at Eleven a Clock in the
Forenoon.

Land Forces, &c. for recruiting, Bill.

The House (pursuant to Order) was adjourned during
Pleasure, and put into a Committee upon the Bill, intituled, "An Act for the better recruiting Her Majesty's Land Forces and the Marines, for the Service
of the Year One Thousand Seven Hundred and
Eight."

After some Time, the House was resumed.

And the Lord Herbert reported, "That the Committee had gone through the said Bill; and think it fit to
pass, without any Amendment."

Hodie 3a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act
for the better recruiting Her Majesty's Land Forces
and the Marines, for the Service of the Year One
Thousand Seven Hundred and Eight."

The Question was put, "Whether this Bill shall
pass?"

It was Resolved in the Affirmative.

Ordered, That the Commons have Notice, the
Lords have agreed to the said Bill, without any Amendment.

Second Report concerning Merchants Pet. complaining of Losses for Want of Cruizers and Convoys; L. High Admiral's Answer to the former Report; and Papers from the Admiralty, Navy Board, Commissioners of Sick and Hurt, &c.

The Duke of Bolton reported from the Lords Committees appointed to consider of the Merchants Petition,
in Behalf of themselves and others, Traders of the
City of London, to whom was referred the Consideration
of the Report made the Seventeenth Day of December
last, and the Papers referred to therein, and the Answer
of the Lord High Admiral put in to the said Report,
and the other Papers to which the said Answer refers;
as also all other Papers received from the Lord High
Admiral, Commissioners of the Navy, and Commissioners of the Sick and Wounded, relating thereunto, in
order to make their Observations or Remarks upon the
said Papers, and also their Opinion or Opinions thereupon.

Which Report, being read by the Clerk, was agreed
to by the House, and is as follows; (videlicet,)

"In relation to the First Head of the Answer, which
is conceived in general Terms, without being applied to
any of the Particulars in the Merchants Complaints,
some Things seem proper to be taken Notice of.

"1. The Answer says, "That all the Instances mentioned in the Report are in the latter Years of Her
Majesty's Reign."

"The Lords Committees observe, "That an Address
of the House of Lords, presented to Her Majesty in
the Year 1704, did lay before Her the heavy Losses
of the Merchants, which had happened for Want of
Cruizers and Convoys for the Home-trade.

"Soon after the presenting of that Address, Sir
George Bing and Sir John Jennings were sent out to
cruize, and continued cruizing till the October following; during which Time, the English Ships were
well protected, and many of the Enemy's Privateers
taken; and the Lords hoped there would have been
no further Occasion of Complaints from the Merchants. And all the Losses contained in the Report
now before the House have happened since that Care
was laid aside.

"2dly, It does appear, by the Papers sent to the House
from the Lord High Admiral, That, in the Year 1706,
the highest Complement of the Ships employed in The
Mediterranean (supposing them manned to that Complement) did not exceed 17,373 Men; and in the Year
1707, the highest Complement of the Ships employed there did amount only to 15,590 Men; and therefore, notwithstanding that Part of the Fleet which was
made Use of there in both these Years, yet about 23,000
Men of the Numbers provided for by Parliament remained, for the necessary Service of guarding and protecting the Coasts and Trade; so that it seems not
possible, that the keeping those Squadrons in The
Mediterranean could be the Occasion of the Cruizers
and Convoys being so weak and few, and the Coast
so ill-guarded.

"3dly, The Strength of Convoys is to be proportioned to the present Circumstances of the Enemy, as
far as Intelligence can be had: And the many Instances
mentioned by the Merchants, of Convoys attacked to
our Disadvantage, shew, by Experience, that most of
our Convoys have been too weak.

"The Second Head of the Answer is also general.
But the Lords Committees observe, That the great Ships
are the Strength of the Line of Battle; and if more
First and Second Rates had been employed in The
Mediterranean, instead of so many Third and Fourth
Rates and smaller Ships, a much greater Number of
Ships proper for Convoys and Cruizers, for the Protection of Trade in The Channel and Soundings, would
have remained free for those Services; or, if there
was found to be a real Want of such Ships, timely and
proper Application might have been made to the Parliament, who have ever been forward in providing for
the Security of Trade; and, in the mean Time,
Ships might have been hired, as has been often done,
rather than the whole Coast should continue in a
Manner besieged by the Enemy's Men of War and
Privateers without Interruption.

"2. The Want of Seamen is too well known, which
proceeds principally from the many Hardships they
suffer. The constant Practice now in Use, in turning over
or removing them from Ship to Ship is, of all others,
the greatest Discouragement: And though the paying
them, at the same Time they are turned over, may
have a fair Appearance; yet that being generally
done when they are aboard, it tempts the Seamen to
extravagant Expences, and proves, in Conclusion, the
utter Ruin of their Families.

"3. Many of the Inconveniencies mentioned in this
Paragraph of the Answer could hardly ever happen,
in case an early Distribution was made of proper
Ships for Convoys, and the Time of their Departure
fixed; whereas, very frequently, Ships are appointed,
when they are at Sea, and it is unknown in what
Condition they will return. The Merchants say,
"That this Year, One of the Convoys named for
the Jamaica Trade was at that Time in The Sound."

"The Answer says, "The Queen's Ships have as
often stayed for the Merchants, as they for their
Convoys; of which One Instance is given in the Paper
marked (A.) The Fact may be so sometimes; but
the Case mentioned in the Paper is not of that Sort;
for there the Merchants Ships were lying in The
Downs, together with The Assistance and Dunkirk
Prize, Two of the Ships of Captain Kerr's Squadron, and were ready to sail; and did sail with them
to Spithead, where the rest of the Squadron lay: And
though it be asserted, "That Mr. Kerr's Ships were
ready the 18th of February at Spithead;" yet it appears that his Instructions do not bear Date till the
3d of March 170 6/7;.

"As to the Third Head, relating to the Want of
Cruizers: The Lords Committees observed, That it
is not the appointing Cruizers Yearly, which will protect Trade; but the careful and strict Observation,
that the Ships appointed for that Purpose do cruize
accordingly.

"Whereas it appears, in the Account of the Disposition of the Fleet laid before the House of Lords,
that no Ship was cruizing in The Soundings and Channel, in the Months of June, July, August, and September last; in which almost all the Gallies and Homeward-bound Ships, whose Loss is so heavily com
plained of by the Merchants, were taken or destroyed.

"In relation to the arbitrary Proceedings of the
Captains of the Queen's Ships of War, in impressing
Seamen out of the Merchant Ships in The West
Indies, as also upon their Return to the Ports of
Great Britain; the Fourth Paragraph of the Answer
says, "If any such Thing has been done, it is contrary to Orders, and has never been complained of
without a proper Redress." Upon reading this Passage,
the Lords Committees summoned Mr. Coward, (to
whose Complaint principally that Part of the Answer
related:) Who attending, and being examined as to
the Matter of Fact, made Oath, "That he had often
complained to the Prince's Council of these great Hardships, and begged Relief from them, before he applied to the House of Lords; That he could mention
many other Instances of the ill Usage he had suffered
in the same Kind.

"That, Year after Year, from the Beginning of the
War, not One of his Ships had escaped having Men
pressed out of them; both at Jamaica and upon their
Return (if there then was a Press); except such as
had run through all Danger into The Downs, and so
got to London."

"In particular, he swore, "That he had complained
to the Prince's Council, of Captain Johnston impressing
his Men out of The Somerset Frigat; and Captain
Roche's impressing his Men out of The Walthamstow
Galley, as also of the taking away his Men out of The
Gold Frigat, and produced to the Prince's Council
the Evidence he had of these several Facts; but could
not learn that any of the Captains were punished or
censured, or so much as once called to an Account, for
their Violences."

"He also swore, "That all the Captains he had
employed to The West Indies have declared to him,
That they who impressed his Men at Jamaica never
shewed any Authority or Consent from the Governor
for so doing:" And he affirmed, he was ready to produce many Captains, who would swear the same
Thing."

"He said, "If such Orders are given as is asserted
in the Answer, the Prince's Council well know, by
the frequent Complaints of him and others, they are
not observed, either at Jamaica or at Home."

"In the Sixth Paragraph of the Answer, which relates to the Loss of the Lisbon Fleet under the Convoy of The Swistsure and Warspright, it is stated in
this Manner: "This Convoy had the Misfortune to
fall in with Seventeen Ships of the Enemy's, which
were going directly from Brest to The West Indies,
and by the greatest Chance imaginable met them in
their Passage."

"And in the Paper marked (C.), (to which the Paragraph refers) after reciting an Account given by the
Captain of The Swiftsure of this Action, and that
most of the Merchants Ships escaped; the Paper (C.)
proceeds thus, "That as there was not any previous
Notice of this Squadron of the Enemy's Ships; so if
a greater Strength had been added to this Convoy
(which was not then to be had), it would have been
but of little Advantage, against such a Number of
the Enemy's Ships."

"This seems so strange a Representation of this
Affair, that it is necessary to lay before the House the
true Matter of Fact, as it appears upon a careful
Examination of it by the Lords Committees.

"First, As to the Assertion, "That there was no previous Notice of this Squadron of the Enemy's:"

"The Lords Committees refer to the Advices concerning the French Shipping, sent to the Admiralty from
the Secretaries of State the last Year (which Advices
are now lying before the House); particularly to an
Extract of a Letter from Mr. Secretary Harley's
Office, dated at Rotterdam, the 7th of February;
New Stile, and sent to Mr. Burchett the First of
February, O. S. giving an Account of the Squadron of
the Ships then lying at Brest; and another from the
Earl of Sunderland's Office, dated at Paris, the
Fourth of February, N. S. and seut to Mr. Burchett
the same First of February, O. S.; as also to another
Letter from Brest, of the Third of February, N. S.
sent from the Earl of Sunderland's Office to the Admiralty the Fourteenth of February, O. S. giving a
particular Account of the same Squadron, and the
Strength of it, and that it was ready to sail; and to
another, dated at Brest, of the Fourteenth of February, N. S. sent from Mr. Secretary Harley to the
Prince's Council the Fourteenth of February, O. S. to
the same Effect.

"Secondly, As to the Assertion, "That there was
then no greater Strength to be had;" it is to be observed, That a Dutch Fleet of Nine Men of War;
under the Command of Admiral Vandergoes, had lain
for some Time at Portsmouth, and sailed from thence
the very same Day that Captain Griffiths, who commanded this Convoy, sailed in The Swiftsurs from the
same Place.

"If Orders had been given to Captain Griffiths to
have kept Company with the Dutch Squadron, there
had been a sufficient Strength to have saved all the
Ships under his Convoy: But it appeared, by the
Examination of Mr. Jacob Henckell, Mr. William
Wood, Captain Francis Cooke, and Captain Edward
Smith, Two Masters of the Merchants Ships which
went under his Convoy; and also by a Letter of Captain John Hunt, another Master, dated from Dinant,
where he then was a Prisoner, "That Captain Griffiths was guilty of divers most unaccountable Delays
off of Plimouth, and thereby lost the Advantage of
keeping the Dutch Fleet Company."

On the 22d of February, Captain Griffiths made a
Signal of seeing Seven Ships, and afterwards or
seeing Seventeen; but, instead of making the best of
his Way from them, he lay by with an easy Sail (not
suffering any of the Merchants to go a-head of him),
till those Ships came within Gun-shot (although he
could not but discern them not to be English Ships
long before; and if they had been English, he had no
Occasion to speak with them). When those Ships
were come so near, they put out French Colours;
and thereupon the Two Men of War, The Swiftsure
and Warspright, made all the Sail away they possibly
could, leaving the Merchants Ships, and Ships
with Provisions for Spain and Portugal, which Captain
Griffiths had under his Care, to shift for themselves;
and of 18 Merchants Ships that were in the Company, 13 were taken; so that most of them did
not escape, as is asserted in the Answer.

"It was also proved, That these French Ships were
cruizing, and not going directly to The West Indies
as the Answer asserts; and that they kept cruizing
all together about Nine Days after this Action, and
then sent their Prizes, with Five of their Men of
War, into Brest; and the rest of the Men of War
continued cruizing about 14 Days longer, and then
they also returned to Brest.

"It was further proved, "That the Letter wrote from
Dinant, by Captain John Hunt, complaining of Captain Griffiths' Behaviour, was, by Sir Edmund Harrison and Mr. Henckell, laid before the Prince's Council; who told them, "They had been informed of
the Matter before; and were sending Directions to
Lisbon, to have Captain Griffiths tried." To which
Sir Edm'd Harrison then objected, "That such a
Trial must signify very little, since no Evidence could
be had against him at that Place."

"Notwithstanding, there was an Order sent, in April
last, for trying Captain Griffiths at Lisbon, at a Court
Martial. The Lords Committees, having desired to
know what was done upon that Order, have been
since informed, by a Paper dated from the Admiraltyoffice, to this Effect, "That he was tried accordingly; and it is presumed he was acquitted, because
he was continued in his Command; but the Result
of the Court Martial is not sent to that Office, and
he who acted as Judge Advocate at the Trial is
since drowned." The same Paper goes on to say,
"That the Trial was at the Desire of the Merchants,
because there was no Evidence against him at Home:"
Whereas it is observed before, "That Sir Edmund
Harrison told the Prince's Council, "There would be
no Evidence against him, if he was tried at Lisbon."

"The Ninth Paragraph of the Answer relates to the
Loss of The Hampton Court and Grafton Men of War,
which, together with The Royal Oak and the Merchants Ships under their Convoy, sailed from The
Downs the First of May last.

"The Answer affirms, "That notwithstanding
what Mr. Dawson swore before the Lords, "That
he was told at the Admiralty-office, the 29th
of April last, that the Dunkirk Squadron was gone
Westward;" yet there was no Notice at that Time of
the Dunkirk Squadron, otherwise than that they were
in the Flemish Road; wherefore the Three Men of
War, One of Seventy-six, and the other Two each
of Seventy Guns, were judged a sufficient Convoy
from The Downs to Spithead."

"Mr. Dawson, being ordered to attend the Lords,
and acquainted with what was charged upon him, did
again affirm, upon Oath, "That the Governor and
Committee of the Muscovia Company, of which he
was One, attended the Prince's Council on Tuesday
the 29th of April last, to know what Convoy was
appointed for that Trade. And being told, by the
Prince's Council, "That One Fourth and Two Fifth
Rates would be their Convoy:" The Governor and
Committee represented their Fears of Danger from
the Dunkirk Squadron; but were then told from the
Board, "They need be under no Apprehension on
that Score, for the Dunkirk Squadron was gone Westward."

"He also mentioned many Circumstances, which
made him so very positive as to the Time; and observed, "That if the Committee had been told at the
Board, that the Dunkirk Squadron was then in Flemish Road, it was so far from being an Argument to
persuade them to acquiesce with so small a Convoy,
that it must have increased their Fears; that Station
being equally proper for the Squadron to fail either
to the Northward or Westward."

"Sir Benjamin Ayloff, Governor of the Muscovia
Company, and Five of the Committee of the same
Company; (videlicet,) Mr. Randolph Knipe, Mr. Henry
Phill, Mr. Josiab Wadsworth, Mr. Thomas Stile, and
Mr. Samue Heathcot, did also severally depose,
"That they did attend the Prince's Council the 29th
Day of April last; and then were told from the Board,
"That the Three Ships, designed for them, were
sufficient for their Security; because the Dunkirk
Squadron was gone Westward." And Four of them;
(videlicet,) Sir Benjamin Ayloff, Mr. Wadsworth, Mr.
Stile, Mr. Phill, swore, they believed Admiral
Churchill was the Person that told them so; but as to
this Particular, they were not so positive.

"This Matter of Fact being directly proved by so
many Persons of unquestionable Credit; the Lords
Committees think, that, by the Reasoning used in the
Answer, the Prince's Council could not judge the
Three Men of War a sufficient Convoy, and consequently ought not to have suffered them to sail Westward on the First of May; especially considering
that, from Time to Time, Notice had been sent to the
Admiralty-office, from both the Secretaries of State,
of the Strength of the Dunkirk Squadron; and when
it is so fully proved, that they owned, "They had
Notice that Squadron was gone Westward."

"The 10th Paragraph of the Answer relates to the
Complaint of the Merchants, touching the Russia
Ships.

"The Instructions to Sir William Whetstone, of the
10th of June last, take Notice, "That the Dunkirk
Squadron was gone Northward; and that there was
Reason to believe, they were designed for the Coast of
Norway; and that they would look out for, and endeavour to intercept, the Fleet bound to Russia for
Naval Stores; which made it absolutely necessary,
that the Convoy to that Trade should be strengthened.
And he is thereby directed, "To proceed, with all the
Merchants Ships under his Convoy, as far as the
Northermost Part of the Isle of Shetland, and there
to leave them to prosecute their Voyage, with their
proper Convoy."

"The Lords make this Observation, That, after
such Intelligence, it appears very reasonable, that Sir
Wm. Whetstone's Orders should have been, to see a
Fleet of such Consequence out of Danger before he
left them.

"The Lords Committees do think it necessary to
inform the House, that Captain Nenion Masters, Commander of the Ship Nenyon and Benjamin, made
Oath, "That, on or about the Ninth Day of July
last, his Ship, together with about Eleven or more
English Ships, were unfortunately taken, in their Voyage to Arch-Angel, by the Chevalier Fourbin's Squadron,
consisting of Seven French Ships of War; that his
Ship was the First taken, and he was immediately
carried on Board Monsieur Fourbin, who demanded of
him what Number of Convoys the English Fleet bound
for Arch-Angel had with them;" he answered, "Twelve
Sail." To which Fourbin replied, "He spake what was
false, for there were only Three Ships of War Convoy to the English Fleet;" Fourbin then declaring,
"That he knew Admiral Whetstone, with his Squadron,
came with the Fleet no farther than the Isle of Shetland, and then returned back again."

"As to the 11th Head of the Answer, respecting
the Merchants Complaint of the Weakness of the
Convoy sent for conducting the King of Portugal's
Horses, and the Trade to Lisbon; the Lords Committees do only make this Observation, That the
Fleet having lain at Spithead for many Months, whereby
the Enemy had an Opportunity of knowing the Value
and Consequence of it; and Notice being taken in the
Orders to Captain Edwards, of the 7th of September,
1707, of a Squadron of the Enemy's Ships cruizing
betwixt Scilly and Ushant;" and Notice being also
taken in the Orders of the Sixth of October, to Sir
John Leake, "That Monsieur Fourbin was sailed from
Brest with several Ships, and was to be joined with
others;" it seems very unaccountable that at last such
a Fleet should be suffered to sail without a greater
Strength. The 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th Paragraphs
of the Answer relating principally to the former Deposition of Mr. Jacob Henckell; the Lords Committees
ordered him to attend again, and he was further examined, in relation to the Facts mentioned in the
Answer.

"He desired to observe, "That the 13th Paragraph
made him say what was not in his Deposition; for he
did not say the Corn Ships were ready to sail in July
and August, but that a great Quantity of Corn was
bought in those Months."

"If any Thing was concerted at The Hague, that
the Ships of The States General should call at Spithead
to take our Merchant Ships under their Convoy, it
was strange no Notice should be given of so good an
Agreement, that so the Merchants might have disposed their Affairs for taking the Benefit of it; especially when he and the other Corn Merchants very
frequently applied to the Prince's Council, to know
when they might expect a Convoy.

"As to what is said of the great Number of Convoys which have gone between England and Portugal,
since April 1703, whereas the Dutch have seldom
sent above One Convoy in the Year; and the Inference
made from thence, that therefore it is not probable
the King of Portugal's Magazines and Armies should
be furnished from Holland:

"Mr. Henckell still affirmed the Fact to be so as he
had formerly sworn; and that, at the very Time of
his Examination, the Portuguese have great Quantities of Corn shipped in Holland. And though the Dutch
have not sent so many Convoys as have gone from
England, yet they go at certain and proper Times,
by Reason whereof their Corn arrives in a good Condition; whereas the unaccountable Delays and Uncertainties of the English Convoys have been the Occasion of great Losses to our Merchants, and great
Disappointments to the Portuguese.

"He also took Notice, "That, of the many Convoys
enumerated in the Answer, several of them were
Fleets or Squadrons of Men of War, of which the
Merchants had no Notice, nor were allowed to have
any Benefit, as appeared by the 14th Head of the
Answer, relating to the Fleet that sailed with Sir
Cloudesly Shovell."

"In the 14th Head of the Answer, much Weight
seems to be laid upon this, "That The Nassau did not
arrive at Spithead till the Twentieth of October;
whereas Mr. Henckell, in his Complaint, had sworn
The Nassau came to Spithead the Eighteenth at Night,
the same Day the Convoy sailed from thence." To
clear himself, Mr. Henckell produced Two original
Letters, signed by Cornelius Collies his Captain, written
from Portsmouth; the One dated the 19th of October,
which says, "The Nassau came too late for the
Convoy, but was at that Time at Spithead;" and the
other dated the 25th, which says expressly, "The
Nassau came to St. Hellens the same Night the Lisbon
Fleet sailed." Mr. Henckell affirmed also, "That he
had other Advices, which fully verified what he had
said in his former Deposition, as to The Nassau's arriving the 18th at Spithead."

"Mr. Henckell further said, "That the Convoy
mentioned in that Paragraph of the Answer, consisting of Four Ships of War, which is there said to
have sailed the 18th of June, does appear by the
Paper marked F. (to which the Paragraph refers)
to be a Convoy that sailed from Portugal that Day,
and so does not contradict what the Merchants had
insisted on in their Complaint, that there was no
Convoy for Portugal between March and October; a
Homeward-bound Convoy being mistaken in the Answer
for an Outward-bound Convoy; and consequently it
was no Contradiction to what the Merchants had
affirmed. And though in the 16th Paragraph of the
Answer it be asserted, "That the Three Ships appointed for Convoy to the Portugal Fleet were at that
Time thought a sufficient Convoy;" Mr. Henckell
swears, "The Prince's Council (by the Reasoning of
the Merchants before them) was convinced of the contrary at the Time the Convoy was sent, and did then
pretend no other Reason for their not strengthening it
but Want of Ships." And he desired to refer particularly to the Remonstrance of the 10th of October
last, which was delivered at that Time by the Merchants to the Prince's Council, and is now lying before the House; whereby, in very strong Terms, they
represented their many Solicitations without Effect,
the great Delays they had met with, and their great
Sense of Danger if they should proceed with that
Convoy, as well as of their certain Ruin by any further Delay.

"The 17th Head of the Answer says, "That the
Ships, which the Merchants supposed lay idle at Portsmouth so long, were under Orders for particular Services, as appears by the Paper marked (G.)

"Upon Consideration of this Paragraph, and of the
Paper marked G. to which it refers; the Matters of
Fact whereof the Merchants did complain seem in
Effect to be admitted to be true; and the Services
for which it is alledged the Ships were designed do
not appear so pressing, but that some of them might
have been employed to help the Merchants in their
great Extremity.

"As to the 18th Head, which relates to Mr. Coward's
Complaint of the long detaining of his Ships let to
Freight to the Commissioners of Victualing; the Answer
says, "It is not doubted they were taken up at so
much a Month Freight; and the Owners will be paid
for the Time they have been employed, according to
the Agreement made with them."

"Mr. Coward deposed, "That his Ships were not
taken by the Month (as the Answer alledged); but
the Contract was at Three Pounds a Tun, directly for
Jamaica, which might have been performed in Seven
or Eight Weeks; whereas, by Means of the Deviations complained of, they have been detained ever since
the 15th of November 1706; and were yet in Ireland at the Time of the Complaint, whereby the
Ships are ruined, and he left at Mercy as to any Satisfaction."

"The 19th Paragraph of the Answer takes Notice
how far Mr. Palmer had forgot himself, and imposed
upon the Lords, in his Deposition; for that The Litchfield Prize did not arrive at Portsmouth till the 7th of
June; whereas Sir Cloudesly Shovell was off of Lisbon
the 9th of June; and therefore it was not possible
that The Litchfield Prize should have joined him at
Plimouth.

"Mr. Palmer, being examined as to this Particular,
said, "That, in his Complaint, it was alledged, The
Litchfield Prize came to Spithead the 7th of July, not
of June, as it is repeated in the Answer." But he
owned his Mistake, in saying, "If The Litchfield Prize
might have proceeded to Plimouth, the Corn Ships
might have joined Sir Cloudesly Shovell's Fleet;"
whereas he meant to have said, "The Transport Fleet,
which at that Time lay at Plimouth, bound to Portugal."

"To shew that it was a meer Mistake, he produced to
the Lords Three Original Letters from Portsmouth,
wrote by his Master Samuel Riccard, dated the 7th,
12th, and 28th of July, which mention the Transport
Fleet, which had lain for a considerable While at Plimouth, and (as those Letters say) sailed for Portugal
about that Time.

The 20th Paragraph affirming, "That the Article
in The Gazette of the 8th of May, 1707, which the
Merchants had produced, was very ignorantly and unadvisedly inserted, the Fact being intirely wrong;
the Lords Committees thought fit to be informed how
that Passage came to be put into The Gazette; and upon
Examination it appeared, that Mr.Stepney, the 12th of
May, New Stile, wrote a Letter from Antwerpe, to the
Earl of Sunderland, at the Solicitations of some considerable Traders there, representing the Hardships
they lay under for Want of a Convoy from Ostend
(though it had been promised and several Times notified on The Exchange of London), to their great Loss
and Discouragement, and what was like to have an
ill Influence on that Trade, which was in a Way of
being better established than ever; and that afterward, upon the Arrival of that Fleet at Ostend, Mr.
Stepney wrote another Letter to the Earl of Sunderland, dated the 14th of May, New Stile, the very Words
of which Second Letter are those transcribed into The
Gazette."

"The Complaint of the Merchants, in relation to
the Virginia Trade, consisted of many Particulars; none
of which seemed to the Lords Committees to be
answered or excused by what is alledged in the 22,
23, and 24 Paragraphs of the Answer, nor by the
Paper marked H. to which the 23d Paragraph does
refer.

"The 25th and 26th Paragraphs of the Answer,
which relate to the Complaint of Mr. John Wood, of
the Difficulties and Delays he met with in getting
his Vessels loaden with Corn to Portsmouth, contain
nothing in particular besides One Matter of Fact;
(videlicet,) " That The Charles Galley and The Gosport,
the Two Convoys for the Corn Ships to Spithead, were
so far from running from the Trade (as was falsely
and maliciously insinuated by Mr. Wood) that they
kept the Merchants Ships Company, and brought them
safe to Spithead, as the Captain of The Charles Galley
informed the Prince's Council by Letter."

"Mr. John Wood, being sent for and charged with this
Matter, produced Two Letters, which he made Oath
were sent to him from Portsmouth, by Captain Edward
Friend, the Master of One of the Corn Ships, the
First dated the 21st, and the other the 22d, of June
last; wherein it is expressly affirmed, "That, about
Eight a Clock in the Evening, the Commander of the
Convoy sent his Boat aboard the Merchants, to tell
them the News, that the Dunkirk Squadron was at
Sea; and at the same Time to let them know, that
the Convoy would take no further Care of them, but
would make the best of their Way to Portsmouth, and
the Merchants must shift for themselves."

"Captain John Falkner, the Master of The Mary,
another of the Ships from Shorcham, made Oath,
That the Commander of the Convoy sent his Boat
aboard the Merchants, to tell them, "That he had Advice of a French Squadron, and that they must shift for
themselves; for they would take no Care of them, but
would make the best of their Way to Portsmouth;" and
he swore, the Convoy were as good as their Words,
and made away with all the Sail they could, and got
in thither a considerable Time before the Merchants,
who were in very great Danger of being taken,
having been chased at least Eight Hours by a French
Privateer."

"The same Captain did, upon his Oath, confirm what
Mr. Wood had before alledged, "That for full Six
Months, while he lay at Shoreham, the French Privateers did continually cruize on the Coast in considerable
Numbers; but in all that Time he could never see or
be informed of any Men of War cruizing, to prevent
or intercept them."

"As to what is said in the Answer, "That the Men
of War who sail Eastward or Westward have always
Directions to call at the several Ports in the Way,"
Mr. Wood added to what he had said before, "That,
if they had such Orders, it was strange no One of
them should ever appear off that Harbour in Six
Months Time."

"The 27th Paragraph of the Answer relates to the
Merchants Complaints of the many and great Losses
of Ships off of Beachy, and upon the English Coast,
in their Return Home.

"What this Paragraph says is, "That these Ships
were Runners, and should have put into Portsmouth
till they had an Opportunity of Convoy; and when
the Merchants shall leave off trading in these Gallies
or Runners (which are subject to many Misfortunes
by going without Convoy), it is to be hoped, their
Losses will be less."

"Their Lordships cannot think it strange, if the
Merchants are very unwilling to put into Portsmouth
in Hopes of Convoy, after the Instances given by them
of their Ships lying there many Months, in vain Expectation of any Men of War to convoy them.

"As to the Proposal for the Merchants leaving off
to trade in Gallies, in Expectation of Convoys; the
Lords Committees observe, "That the Use of this
Kind of Vessel was taken up during the late War, and
has been continued ever since with very great Success
till within Two Years last; during which Time, there
has been in a Manner a total Neglect of having any
Cruizers in The Chanel and Soundings, or any Man
of War to guard the Coasts."

"These Ships are built for sailing, and also to row
with Oars, and carry no more Goods than are proper
for sailing, and carry Twice the Number of Men to a
common sailing Ship, and are of Force from 16 to 40
Guns.

"There is no Convoy granted to any Trade within
The Streights but to Turkey only, which is never above
Once in the Year, and must be acknowledged to be too
seldom to answer the Occasions of the Traders to Leghorn, Genoa, Venice, and other Places in those Seas.

"If therefore the Use of Gallies or single Ships be
laid down (for, if any single Ships be used in trading,
it will be granted the Gallies are better Sailers,
and have the Advantage of any common built-Ships),
and if all The Mediterranean Trade is to be carried on
by Convoys; that whole Trade will be in a Manner
lost to England, especially in respect to Fish and other
perishable Commodities, and would be soon felt in a
very heavy Manner in all Parts of the Nation; the
great Consequence of that Trade fully appearing, by
the Merchants Proofs set down in the Report made
upon their Petition.

"It is necessary for the Safety and Honour of the
Kingdom, and of all Manner of Trade whatsoever,
that The Channel and Soundings be well guarded; and
if this be done, the Traders in Gallies own, they have
no Reason to complain.

"The Enemy have not altered their Way of making
War by Sea; they always endeavoured to infest our
Trade by their Privateers to as great a Degree as they
could: But it must be owned that of late they have
had greater Success than ever; and the great Encouragement they meet with (the Sea in Effect being left
open to them), it is too probable, will very soon increase
their Numbers.

"The Merchants do insist, "That the List of Eleven
Hundred Forty-six Ships, given in by them, does not
contain all their Losses during this War; but in a
Manner such only as have been taken in The Channel
and Soundings within Two or Three Years last, and
principally such as did belong to the Port of London."

"They have already had an Account of 34 Ships
taken in The Channel and Soundings since they made
their Complaint to the House of Lords; of which
Ships they delivered a List to the Committee, and
affirmed, "That the Loss of those Ships, by a modest Computation, amounted to above £. 170,000."
They affirmed, " That, besides those named in that
List, several other rich Ships are missing; and many
of them, they fear, have met with the same Fate; The
Channel and Soundings being infested with the Enemy's
Men of War and Privateers as much as ever; the
Neutral Ships, which come into the Ports of Britain,
declaring that they have been boarded by them in
those Places several Times in a Day."

"The Answer (as to what concerns Mr. Benjamin
Way) says expressly, "That Matter was not complained
of at the Admiralty-office before it was brought to
the Lords."

"This seems very strange; for it appears plainly by
the Two Letters marked (I.) and K. referred to in
the Answer itself, and sent therewith to the Lords,
that both of them were written upon Occasion of
a Complaint made by Way to the Admiralty; and
are only Copies of the very same Letters which were
annexed to Way's Complaint to the Lords, and were
sent, together with the Lords Report, to the Lord High
Admiral.

"This is what the Lords Committees have humbly
to offer to your Lordships, in relation to so much of
the Answer as concerns the Merchants Complaints.

"The remaining Part of it seems entirely foreign to
the Subject of the Report, containing only an unnecessary Comparison of the Management of the Naval
Affairs in this and the late War; since any Faults or
Errors, which might have happened at that Time,
would not lessen the Misfortunes of the Merchants,
or justify any wrong Conduct at present. But the
Lords Committees think themselves obliged to lay
before your Lordships several very plain Mistakes,
which they find in this Part of the Paper.

"In the First Observation, it is asserted, "That the
Parliament has not in this Reign given One Farthing
of Money for the building of Ships; and that in the
last War there was about Four Millions given for that
and other extraordinary Services; and yet the Royal
Navy was less in Strength at the End thereof than
at the Beginning, by Twenty Ships of the Line of
Battle."

"This is so far from being a right State of the
Case, that in this Observation there appears at First
Sight a Mistake of no less than Three Millions in
Four; the whole Sums given for building of Ships in
the last War not amounting to One Million.

"This in Effect was afterwards confessed, in a Second
Paper sent from the Admiralty-office, of the 28th of
January, 1707, by Way of Explanation of a former
Paper delivered to the Lords Committees from that
Office.

"In this Second Paper, Notice is taken of the Numbers and Rates of Ships provided for by Parliament,
and the Days are set down when the Money was voted
for them; but the Sums are omitted, which would
too plainly have contradicted the Assertion, "That
Four Millions were granted."

"The true State of that Matter will appear by the
fore-mentioned Second Paper, if the Sums be added,
as the same are set down in the First of those Papers
from the Admiralty-office, and is as follows:

"There was given for building Ships,

s.

d.

10 October, 1690,

of the

3d

Rate,

No

3

£. 88,008

10

00

24 December, 1690,

of the

3d
4th

Rates,

17
10

570,000

00

00

2 December, 1692,

of the

4th

Rate,

8

79,308

00

00

30th November, 1694
6th December, 1695,

of the

2d

Rate,

4

70,000
138,424

00
00

00
00

6th December, 1695,

of the

3d
4th

Rates,

4
8

65,835

18

11

£. 1,011,576

08

11

"Memorandum, That the ⅓ Excise, which was given
for £. 570,000. did produce but £. 482,617.
11s. 2d. ½. of which there has been paid
for building the 27 Ships £. 453,591. 19s.;
and to other Uses £. 29,025. 12s. 2½d.

"These were all the Sums granted by Parliament for
building Ships during that whole War. The other
Sums set down in the First Paper, which makes the
Whole amount to £. 4,579,571. 4s. 2½d. were either
for the ordinary and current Services of the Navy,
as Seamen's Wages, Victualing, &c. or for such particular Uses as had no Relation to the building of
Ships, such as the Payment of Marine Officers, Register of Seamen, &c.

"The Second Mistake in this Observation is, That
the Royal Navy, instead of being less at the End of the
late War by 20 Ships than it was at the Beginning,
was increased by 113 Ships and Vessels, of which
39 were of the Line of Battle, besides 21 Ships
which were building on the 30th of September 1697,
whereof 13 were of the Line of Battle.

"And though in the same Observation it be alledged,
That nothing has been given in this Reign for
building of Ships; yet the Provision for the Navy in
general has been much larger in this War than in
the last; for in this Reign there has been granted for
the Use of the Navy (including the Ordnance for
Sea Service, and the Sums voted for the Service of the
Year 1708) the Sum of £.15,366,867. 17 s. 10d.

"Whereas all the Sums received by the Treasurers
of the Navy, between the Fifth of November 1688
and the 30th September 1697, (including the Money
given for building Ships) only amounted to the Sum
of £.15,136,898. 1s. 5d."

"It may be also observed, That, in the Year 1698,
there were 105 Ships of the Line of Battle in thorough
Repair; whereas it appears that, on the 6th of December
1707, Three First Rates, Eight Second Rates, Six
Third Rates, and Two Fourth Rates, wanted rebuilding, or great Repairs; which, considering the Nature of the Ships, makes a great Part of the Strength
of the Line of Battle."

"The Second Observation takes Notice, "That the
Number of the Ships of the Navy of France, taken
or destroyed by Her Majesty's Ships this War, does
much exceed our Losses; as appears by the Papers
marked L. and M. wherein there is no Mention
of the French Ships destroyed by the Ships of The
States General."

"The Lords Committees take Notice, That by the
Paper (L.) it appears, the greatest Number of
the Enemy's Ships, and those of the greatest Consequence, were taken or destroyed in the Harbours
of Vigo, Gibraltar, and Ostend; at the Two First of
which Places, the Ships of The States General assisted.

"And that, during the War, only 25 Ships of all
Sorts have been taken or destroyed, by Cruizing Ships
at Sea; and of that Number only Five Ships from
30 to 60 Guns.

"By the Paper marked M. it appears, That the
Number of Her Majesty's Ships and Vessels, taken
and destroyed by the Enemy's, during the present
War, are Thirty-five; Thirteen whereof are Ships
of the Line of Battle, from 50 to 80 Guns.

"The Sixth Observation is, "That, in the last War,
the Trade of the Nation had the Misfortune to lose
near 4000 Ships."

"This appeared so very strange to the Lords Committees, that they sent to the Admiralty-office, to be
informed if there was any List of those Ships, or
what Grounds they had for making that Assertion.

"The Answer sent in Return to this Message was a
printed Paper, without any Name of the Author or
Printer, in which are these Words, "It is generally
allowed that the Number of Ships and Vessels miscarried since the War does not fall short of 4000."

"Upon Consideration of the Paper, it appeared to
be a Libel, written as a pretended Answer to an Account published by Authority, in the Year 1695, of
what Men of War and Privateers had been taken
from the French from the Beginning of that War;
and it contains in it not only scandalous Reflections
upon the Parliaments of that Reign, but notoriously
false Representations of Matters of Fact, which might
have easily been known to be so at the Admiraltyoffice; and therefore it seems very strange, that such a
Libel should be offered as a Proof to the Lords, in an
Answer which is supposed to come from that Office.

"But, as an Evidence that there can be no Foundation
of Truth for this Assertion, the Lords Committees
offer to your Lordships Consideration, That the Number of English Prisoners who have been returned from
France, from the Beginning of this War to December
last, amounted to 18,011, and there then remained in
France 2000 more; whereas the Number of English
Prisoners returned from France, from the Beginning of
the late War, until the 24th Day of June 1698, did
amount to no more than 15,250.

"And it is not probable that the Ships taken in the
former War should be so many more than those taken
in the present (as is pretended), when the Prisoners are
so remarkably fewer.

"To the latter Part of this Sixth Observation, "That,
during the last War, we had the Ports of Spain, as
well as those in The Spanish West Indies, open, to secure
our Ships, not only from the Enemy, but from bad
Weather:"

"The Lords Committees say Two Things; First,
That till now they never heard that the Ports in The
Spanish West Indies were at any Time open, to secure
English Men of War or Merchants Ships.

"Secondly, That the many great Losses complained
of by the Merchants appear to have been in The
Channel and Soundings, and consequently the Spanish
Ports, though open, would have been no very essential
Countenance and Protection to them."

Former Report on the Merchants Petition. L. High Admiral's Answer to it, and this Report to be laid before the Queen's

Upon reading the Report made this Day from the
Lords Committees appointed to consider of the Petition
of several Merchants, on Behalf of themselves and others,
Traders of the City of London:

It is Ordered, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal
in Parliament assembled, That the said Report, as also
the Report made by the said Committee on the said Petition the Seventeenth of December last, and the Answer of
the Lord High Admiral put in thereunto, shall be laid
before Her Majesty.

Committee to prepare an Address.

And that the said Lords Committees do meet on
Thursday next, at Ten a Clock, in the Prince's Lodgings
near the House of Peers; and prepare an Address, upon
the said Reports and Answer, and the Debate of the
House.